Unfolding the Shepherdess: A Revision of Pastoral

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

I started to look for shepherdesses in early modern pastoral—that is, characters called shepherdesses—when one made a belated appearance in Caroline reprintings of an Elizabethan romance, Robert Greene’s Pandosto. In Greene’s original text, ca. 1585, Fawnia, the lost Bohemian princess, is consistently called a shepherd like the Sicilian country man who adopted her.1 So, for instance, she interpolates herself to Dorastus, the prince of Sicily: “Fawnia, thou art a shepherd, daughter to poor Porrus” (p. 182). Even after Dorastus, too, “becomes a shepherd” to woo her, she insists, “I dare not say, Dorastus, I love thee, because I am a shepherd” (pp. 185, 188). Fawnia’s self-description—”shepherd” without “-ess”—marks her social status, but not, as we might expect, her gender. Then, in the tenth extant edition of the romance, dated 1632 (STC 12291), the noun is varied. The narrator reports Dorastus’s “calling to mind, that Fawnia was a Shepheardesse” (sig. D3V); then, the prince convinces himself that she is “borne to be a Shepheardesse, but worthy to be a Goddesse” (sig. D4). While the prince’s emendation chimes with “goddess,” the narrator’s has no rhetorical motivation. Throughout this 1632 edition, Fawnia still call herself a “shepherd,” as though the gendered form is not in her rustic vocabulary.2 By the twelfth edition of 1636 (STC 12292), the change is consistent: Fawnia is now a “shepherdess” throughout the romance, even in her own rhetorical set pieces, as though no one, even the simplest of country girls, would call a woman a “shepherd.”
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProse Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640
EditorsConstance C. Relihan, Goran V. Stanivukovic
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
Pages235-255
ISBN (Electronic)978-1-137-09177-2
ISBN (Print)978-1-349-73216-6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2003

Publication series

NameEarly Modern Cultural Studies

Fingerprint

Romance
Rhetoric
Narrator
Daughters
Elizabethan Age
Art
Nouns
Emendation
Goddess
Social Status
Sicily

Cite this

Newcomb, L. H. (2003). Unfolding the Shepherdess: A Revision of Pastoral. In C. C. Relihan, & G. V. Stanivukovic (Eds.), Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640 (pp. 235-255). (Early Modern Cultural Studies). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13

Unfolding the Shepherdess : A Revision of Pastoral. / Newcomb, Lori Humphrey.

Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640. ed. / Constance C. Relihan; Goran V. Stanivukovic. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. p. 235-255 (Early Modern Cultural Studies).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Newcomb, LH 2003, Unfolding the Shepherdess: A Revision of Pastoral. in CC Relihan & GV Stanivukovic (eds), Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640. Early Modern Cultural Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 235-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13
Newcomb LH. Unfolding the Shepherdess: A Revision of Pastoral. In Relihan CC, Stanivukovic GV, editors, Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003. p. 235-255. (Early Modern Cultural Studies). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13
Newcomb, Lori Humphrey. / Unfolding the Shepherdess : A Revision of Pastoral. Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640. editor / Constance C. Relihan ; Goran V. Stanivukovic. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. pp. 235-255 (Early Modern Cultural Studies).
@inbook{385019a771d645bda18493698f23c130,
title = "Unfolding the Shepherdess: A Revision of Pastoral",
abstract = "I started to look for shepherdesses in early modern pastoral—that is, characters called shepherdesses—when one made a belated appearance in Caroline reprintings of an Elizabethan romance, Robert Greene’s Pandosto. In Greene’s original text, ca. 1585, Fawnia, the lost Bohemian princess, is consistently called a shepherd like the Sicilian country man who adopted her.1 So, for instance, she interpolates herself to Dorastus, the prince of Sicily: “Fawnia, thou art a shepherd, daughter to poor Porrus” (p. 182). Even after Dorastus, too, “becomes a shepherd” to woo her, she insists, “I dare not say, Dorastus, I love thee, because I am a shepherd” (pp. 185, 188). Fawnia’s self-description—”shepherd” without “-ess”—marks her social status, but not, as we might expect, her gender. Then, in the tenth extant edition of the romance, dated 1632 (STC 12291), the noun is varied. The narrator reports Dorastus’s “calling to mind, that Fawnia was a Shepheardesse” (sig. D3V); then, the prince convinces himself that she is “borne to be a Shepheardesse, but worthy to be a Goddesse” (sig. D4). While the prince’s emendation chimes with “goddess,” the narrator’s has no rhetorical motivation. Throughout this 1632 edition, Fawnia still call herself a “shepherd,” as though the gendered form is not in her rustic vocabulary.2 By the twelfth edition of 1636 (STC 12292), the change is consistent: Fawnia is now a “shepherdess” throughout the romance, even in her own rhetorical set pieces, as though no one, even the simplest of country girls, would call a woman a “shepherd.”",
author = "Newcomb, {Lori Humphrey}",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "978-1-349-73216-6",
series = "Early Modern Cultural Studies",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",
pages = "235--255",
editor = "Relihan, {Constance C.} and Stanivukovic, {Goran V.}",
booktitle = "Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Unfolding the Shepherdess

T2 - A Revision of Pastoral

AU - Newcomb, Lori Humphrey

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - I started to look for shepherdesses in early modern pastoral—that is, characters called shepherdesses—when one made a belated appearance in Caroline reprintings of an Elizabethan romance, Robert Greene’s Pandosto. In Greene’s original text, ca. 1585, Fawnia, the lost Bohemian princess, is consistently called a shepherd like the Sicilian country man who adopted her.1 So, for instance, she interpolates herself to Dorastus, the prince of Sicily: “Fawnia, thou art a shepherd, daughter to poor Porrus” (p. 182). Even after Dorastus, too, “becomes a shepherd” to woo her, she insists, “I dare not say, Dorastus, I love thee, because I am a shepherd” (pp. 185, 188). Fawnia’s self-description—”shepherd” without “-ess”—marks her social status, but not, as we might expect, her gender. Then, in the tenth extant edition of the romance, dated 1632 (STC 12291), the noun is varied. The narrator reports Dorastus’s “calling to mind, that Fawnia was a Shepheardesse” (sig. D3V); then, the prince convinces himself that she is “borne to be a Shepheardesse, but worthy to be a Goddesse” (sig. D4). While the prince’s emendation chimes with “goddess,” the narrator’s has no rhetorical motivation. Throughout this 1632 edition, Fawnia still call herself a “shepherd,” as though the gendered form is not in her rustic vocabulary.2 By the twelfth edition of 1636 (STC 12292), the change is consistent: Fawnia is now a “shepherdess” throughout the romance, even in her own rhetorical set pieces, as though no one, even the simplest of country girls, would call a woman a “shepherd.”

AB - I started to look for shepherdesses in early modern pastoral—that is, characters called shepherdesses—when one made a belated appearance in Caroline reprintings of an Elizabethan romance, Robert Greene’s Pandosto. In Greene’s original text, ca. 1585, Fawnia, the lost Bohemian princess, is consistently called a shepherd like the Sicilian country man who adopted her.1 So, for instance, she interpolates herself to Dorastus, the prince of Sicily: “Fawnia, thou art a shepherd, daughter to poor Porrus” (p. 182). Even after Dorastus, too, “becomes a shepherd” to woo her, she insists, “I dare not say, Dorastus, I love thee, because I am a shepherd” (pp. 185, 188). Fawnia’s self-description—”shepherd” without “-ess”—marks her social status, but not, as we might expect, her gender. Then, in the tenth extant edition of the romance, dated 1632 (STC 12291), the noun is varied. The narrator reports Dorastus’s “calling to mind, that Fawnia was a Shepheardesse” (sig. D3V); then, the prince convinces himself that she is “borne to be a Shepheardesse, but worthy to be a Goddesse” (sig. D4). While the prince’s emendation chimes with “goddess,” the narrator’s has no rhetorical motivation. Throughout this 1632 edition, Fawnia still call herself a “shepherd,” as though the gendered form is not in her rustic vocabulary.2 By the twelfth edition of 1636 (STC 12292), the change is consistent: Fawnia is now a “shepherdess” throughout the romance, even in her own rhetorical set pieces, as though no one, even the simplest of country girls, would call a woman a “shepherd.”

U2 - 10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13

DO - 10.1007/978-1-137-09177-2_13

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-349-73216-6

T3 - Early Modern Cultural Studies

SP - 235

EP - 255

BT - Prose Fiction and Early Modern Sexualities in England, 1570–1640

A2 - Relihan, Constance C.

A2 - Stanivukovic, Goran V.

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - New York

ER -